The most astounding fact!

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





I agree with much of what you state, but it is not important to know what a brick is in all cases. Just as I do not have to know about atoms to understand the properties of wood. Models of brain activity may involve consideration of neurons. Can ideal gas laws be derived without knowing about atoms or molecules?


I agree with what you are saying too. It is not important to know what bricks are made of in all cases. But if you are going to to state you understand the inner workings of something and claim that is a fact then I would expect you to be able to demonstrate you have an understanding of the topic at a foundation level. The OP has made no such demonstration and neither has the scientific community.

Yes we belief that molecules are created inside stars but that does not mean we understand what these building blocks actually are and what they are made of. So for the OP to state that evolution is fact is plain wrong. There are many scientists who disagree with the principles of evolution on a fundamental level. Yet the OP with his utube video thinks he has he can claim something a fact without addressing the fundamentals is flawed.

Gravity and therm dyanimcs are theories. The possess usefulness because they facilitate us in our everyday lifes. That does not make them facts nor does it mean we should not use them...




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


A theory can be measured in its usefulness. That does not make it a fact nor does it mean we should not use it. Newtonian physics is flawed. It is not a fact yet we use it all the time. That does not take away from the fact that it is amazing science. But no it is not fact....



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





TextIn other words, you're out of arguments and run away with your tail between your legs


No he left because you demonstrated you do not know what you are talking about and showed a disability to want to learn. Atoms are made of fluctuation of energy - read up on some quantum physics or watch the utube vidoe I posted you to give you a general introduction to the subject.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Atoms aren't made of energy


Atoms are made up off vibrations or waves.. But again that really is not answering the question.. What are vibrations and waves made up of and what in the universe allows these vibrations and waves to exist in the first place...



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 





The OP has made no such demonstration and neither has the scientific community.


I posted detailed links to studies showing how those molecules are formed through stellar nucleosynthesis. So the scientific community very well demonstrated how it works...you simply chose to ignore it





Yes we belief that molecules are created inside stars but that does not mean we understand what these building blocks actually are and what they are made of.


An no one has claimed otherwise. All Tyson and the others state is that this is how molecules are formed, which is the simple truth. In the end it doesn't matter how the building blocks of atoms (and again, atoms aren't energy as you incorrectly stated!) come to be as they don't make any statements regarding this. They merely state how molecules are formed. Just like you can come up with the theory of evolution without knowing how life started in the first place. If a giant purple unicorn created life, it still wouldn't invalidate the theory of evolution as it makes no claims regarding how life started...and it wouldn't really change how evolution works.




So for the OP to state that evolution is fact is plain wrong.


Once again, you are wrong as the theory of evolution is both a theory and fact...you simply ignore every link that proves you wrong





There are many scientists who disagree with the principles of evolution on a fundamental level.


There's more scientists called Steve (not Stephen, or Steven, or any other form of the name) than scientists disagreeing with the theory of evolution. If it were wrong, we couldn't actively apply it in modern medicine to develop vaccines, and it wouldn't be a scientific theory if anyone could objectively "debunk" it.

Again, read up on scientific method





Yet the OP with his utube video thinks he has he can claim something a fact without addressing the fundamentals is flawed.


How exactly is it flawed if we know that's how molecules develop? It doesn't matter how the base elements of atoms form as the elements would still form inside stars





Gravity and therm dyanimcs are theories. The possess usefulness because they facilitate us in our everyday lifes. That does not make them facts nor does it mean we should not use them...


So does the theory of evolution because we apply it in modern medicine. And it's the same with stellar nucleosynthesis as by knowing how molecules form, we can find ways to use that knowledge. There's TONS of potentially practical implications of this. For example: If you know how to create every element from its basic atoms in practice, you could create any matter you wanted from basic atoms. Ever wondered how the materializers in Star Trek would work in practice? Well, that's how! Not saying scientists can do this (yet), but knowing how those elements form in the first place is an important step.




A theory can be measured in its usefulness.


It can...but that has ZERO implications on its validity


By the way, I think it's interesting how you simply ignored the explanation of "fact" I posted...because it highlights what nonsense you're spreading around


The one thing we agree on is that scientists don't have all the answers, and probably won't. But there's a ton of things they CAN explain, such as evolution and how elements form....or how fast a ball will drop if you throw from a plane going xyz km/h. Those are facts and theories at the same time as you can observe and test those theories.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





TextIn other words, you're out of arguments and run away with your tail between your legs


No he left because you demonstrated you do not know what you are talking about and showed a disability to want to learn. Atoms are made of fluctuation of energy - read up on some quantum physics or watch the utube vidoe I posted you to give you a general introduction to the subject.


You're talking about string theory...but not interpreting it correctly. They aren't claiming atoms are "strings" that vibrate.

And energy contents only fluctuates if atoms react with eachother...for example, that's how nuclear energy is produced.

Again, what does that have to do with the FACT that base elements are produced inside stars? Like I said, we don't need to know about how atoms are built down to quantum level to make the claim that molecules are made inside stars...just like we don't need to know how life started to state the theory of evolution



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


So if your theory of evolution is fact how come these scientists disagree with it...?




More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin’s theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.





All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”


www.wnd.com...


please feel free to continue to blindly follow what you have been taught without questioning it... and please feel free to claim to know more than these doctoral scientists without providing a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

The only thing you have provided is a non scientific video claiming to be a scientific fact... yes that makes lots of sense...



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


No wonder you think the theory of evolution is up for debate and the scientific community is "split" about it if you get your "information" from garbage sites like WND


That's like visiting the Catholic church's homepage to learn about contraception


Read up on Project Steve to learn why your argument is utter nonsense


The overwhelming majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution.

PS: I haven't just linked that video...I also linked 2 scientific articles discussing the subject in details. Of course you simply ignore those
edit on 6-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Atoms aren't made of energy

When they react with eachother they create energy. Atoms are a base unit of MATTER! You might wanna read up on atoms


I thought energy cannot be created or destroyed?

Don't the subatomic particles which make up the atom contain potential energy?

I'm confused



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by followtheevidence
 





I thought energy cannot be created or destroyed? Don't the subatomic particles which make up the atom contain potential energy? I'm confused


Yes they do contain energy that is why when you split an atom you get a large release of energy...



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



When they react with eachother they create energy. Atoms are a base unit of MATTER! You might wanna read up on atoms



To be precise: They don't CREATE energy as that is impossible in a closed system like an universe. They just set energy free, combined with the creation of some minor particles.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Right. Which is why it would make more sense to state that when certain atoms interact with other atoms they release energy ... they don't create create energy as the OP suggested.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You can link what you wish it does not make it fact as you claim it does. Science does not work on fact as I stated earlier it works on falsification. Your topic reallly should be in the grey area.. and for information I am not a creationist but your thread is garbage you are treating science like a religion.

I will bow out and leave you too it..



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Yeah...that's what I meant. Atoms are still basic unit of matter rather than energy though in a scientific sense.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You can link what you wish it does not make it fact as you claim it does. Science does not work on fact as I stated earlier it works on falsification. Your topic reallly should be in the grey area.. and for information I am not a creationist but your thread is garbage you are treating science like a religion.

I will bow out and leave you too it..


Clearly facts exist in science, you simply ignore it


I'll post the relevant quote again:




A fact is not a statement of certainty, but through repeated confirmation the things or processes they refer to are generally accepted as true according to the reliability of inference (inductive, deductive, and abductive). Facts refer to "events that occur" or "the state of being of things" that can be publicly verified, proven through experiment, or witnessed by direct observation.


LINK

So a scientific theory can be a theory and fact at the same time.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence
reply to post by purplemer
 


Right. Which is why it would make more sense to state that when certain atoms interact with other atoms they release energy ... they don't create create energy as the OP suggested.


You are correct molecules can create or use energy in their formation. No atoms dont create energy unless they are split. Isotopes (unstable atoms) will release energy over a period of time.

On a fundamental level atoms are made of vibrations or waves. What waves are and how they react with the us the observer is not clearly understood. If you go far enough down the rabbit hole we really do not know what we made up of. Its premature of the OP to state we know how life is formed when we do not know what the building blocks of life are made from nor do we have an understanding of how and why the universe allows the formation of the complex matter known as life.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 





Its premature of the OP to state we know how life is formed...


I never made any statements regarding how life formed...way to put words in my mouth


I merely stated how the molecules are formed. Last I checked a carbon molecule or oxygen molecule isn't considered "life"



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Last I checked a carbon molecule or oxygen molecule isn't considered "life


You checked wrong. Carbon and oxygen are integral to life on earth. Would you care to show me a life form that is not composed of these two elements..



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Last I checked a carbon molecule or oxygen molecule isn't considered "life


You checked wrong. Carbon and oxygen are integral to life on earth. Would you care to show me a life form that is not composed of these two elements..


They are building blocks of life (as we know it), but on their own, they are NOT "life". If they were, you'd read "scientists found life in outer space" in every single newspaper on the planet...because scientists found tons of oxygen and other molecules in outer space already


So no, I never claimed they (or I) know how life first formed


You are essentially showing us a screw claiming "here, look at this magnificent car!".

Not only don't you seem to understand what "facts" are, you are now also putting words in my mouth...great
edit on 6-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





They are building blocks of life, but on their own, they are NOT "life". If they were, you'd read "scientists found life in outer space" in every single newspaper on the planet


you are correct. I shall give thee a star.... but still evolution is not a fact biologists have rejected ‘Darwinism' and no longer agree with ideas put forth by Darwin and co....





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join